EU further tightens sanctions against Syria

[News_Editor]

EU further tightens sanctions against Syria

2012-02-28 07:42:11 GMT+7 (ICT)

BRUSSELS, Belgium (BNO NEWS)-- The European Union (EU) on Monday announced expanded sanctions and restrictive measures against Syria due to the continued government-sanctioned violence against civilians.

"Today's decisions will put further pressure on those who are responsible for the ruthless campaign of repression in Syria," said EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton. "The measures target the regime and its ability to conduct the appalling violence against civilians. As long as the repression continues, the EU will keep imposing sanctions."

The European Council said it has reinforced its restrictive measures against the Syrian regime with trade in gold, precious metals and diamonds with Syrian public bodies and the central bank no longer being permitted. The EU also stated that cargo flights operated by Syrian carriers will not have access to EU airports, with the exception of mixed passenger and cargo flights.

In addition, the Council also froze the assets of the Syrian central bank within the EU, while "ensuring that legitimate trade can continue under strict conditions." Furthermore, the Council subjected seven ministers of the Syrian government, who are allegedly associated with the human rights violations, to an asset freeze and a visa ban.

Syria has been part of the wider Arab Spring movement which began in early 2011 and has been riddled by violence ever since. Pro-democracy demonstrations have spread across the country since mid-March, resulting in a fierce government crackdown.

According to the most recent figures released by the United Nations in January, at least 5,400 people have been killed as a result of violence during the uprising. Syrian human rights and opposition activists say the figure has since surpassed 8,000 and includes hundreds of children.

The Syrian government has repeatedly claimed that violent acts against protesters have been carried out by 'terrorists dressed as soldiers,' although international observers have rejected these claims. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad previously admitted that mistakes were made, but claimed protesters were no longer being targeted.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-02-28

[coma]

Don't you get it? Don't you learn ?

[Steely Dan]

Don't you get it? Don't you learn ?

I take it you are referring to the E.U and not Assad. So would you have the E.U do nothing at all whilst Assad butchers his people, or are you perhaps assuming that these sanctions are an inevitable precursor to regime change?

[flying]

Uncle Sam has been vetoing UN Security Council resolutions against Israel since the latter’s inception.

And Israel has been bombing, strafing, and killing unarmed Palestinian protesters regularly and efficiently since then, too.

So why is a Russian veto suddenly so objectionable?

Why Assad Has Survived

[Scott]

A previously deleted post has been restored to view.

I think we will stick to EU sanctions and Syria on this thread.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Scott
post restored

[maidu]

What an unholy mess there in Syria. Even when the smoke clears, who can say the next dictator will be better or worse than the current dictator and his father? Muslim extremists are always waiting in the wings when crap hits the fan in the Middle East. It's near impossible for decent Muslims to stand up against the force of hot-headed threatening extremists who scream 'Allah Akbar' in your face every two seconds. What's better, the devil you know, or the devil you don't know?

[coma]

Don't you get it? Don't you learn ?

I take it you are referring to the E.U and not Assad. So would you have the E.U do nothing at all whilst Assad butchers his people, or are you perhaps assuming that these sanctions are an inevitable precursor to regime change?

I am saying that we, the west, should but out of middle eastern affairs. Leave it to their Arab neighbours to determine if to or how to fix it. Western intervention will just inflame and already huge anti western sentiment throught the middle east.

[Ulysses G.]

What an unholy mess there in Syria. Even when the smoke clears, who can say the next dictator will be better or worse than the current dictator and his father?

Egypt and Libya are the same.

[nong38]

Banning the export of brussell sprouts, liquorice and very soft toilet tissue should do the trick.

[Steely Dan]

Don't you get it? Don't you learn ?

I take it you are referring to the E.U and not Assad. So would you have the E.U do nothing at all whilst Assad butchers his people, or are you perhaps assuming that these sanctions are an inevitable precursor to regime change?

I am saying that we, the west, should but out of middle eastern affairs. Leave it to their Arab neighbours to determine if to or how to fix it. Western intervention will just inflame and already huge anti western sentiment throught the middle east.

If you find the actions of a regime morally repugnant I think declining to trade with them is more than appropriate, even though we still choose to trade with the likes of China which is far from perfect. When it comes to military intervention I would agree that the only thing it seems to achieve is change who is being murdered by who, democracy never seems to figure, yet we naively persist in believing this illusion. Where I disagree is your belief we 'inflame anti-western sentiment'. If you look at world history over the last 1400 years you can see clearly that anti-everyone else sentiment has been the rule rather than the exception throughout the Islamic world. The colonial period brought this to an end for a while, solely because we had the means to impose our will. We still have those means but instead due partly to oil, partly to a post-colonial guilt trip we seem blind to what we are dealing with and now western foreign policy has morphed into doing the dirty work of the Muslim brotherhood.

With regards to Syria there is one significant piece of news that seems to have been overlooked;- Hamas have finally sided with the Syrian opposition against Assad. This may cut off Iranian sponsorship to Hamas, but it also lays bare the Sunni - Shia power struggle going on in the middle east. I see the prospects of a major war between a Sunni and Shiite power block as becoming more and more possible - though the house of Saud would rather their infidel stooges do their dirty work for them.

[Steely Dan]

Uncle Sam has been vetoing UN Security Council resolutions against Israel since the latter’s inception.

And Israel has been bombing, strafing, and killing unarmed Palestinian protesters regularly and efficiently since then, too.

So why is a Russian veto suddenly so objectionable?

Why Assad Has Survived

This 'opinion' piece is more than a bit of a stretch. Firstly calling the Palestinians 'unarmed' is willfully misleading and the hyperbolic rhetoric that Israel has killed 'hundreds of thousands' of Palestinians is also ridiculous. In fact if you tot up the total number of deaths during both intifadas and operation cast lead it is still dwarfed by the number killed by Jordan when they expelled the PLO. Indeed Syria twice over with Assad senior killing 25,000 and junior thus far 7,500 are also in a different league. It's a shame to blow it's credibility with such comparisons as the underlying reality of the Sunni-Shia power play and the fact that regime change only changes who gets killed is right on the money.

Look in the left wing Huffington post for an article underlining the fact there is no moral equivalence argument that holds water if you want to compare Israel to any of it's neighbors and in particular Syria.

Edit:Removed link as mostly relates to Israel not Syria.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Steely Dan

[coma]

Don't you get it? Don't you learn ?

I take it you are referring to the E.U and not Assad. So would you have the E.U do nothing at all whilst Assad butchers his people, or are you perhaps assuming that these sanctions are an inevitable precursor to regime change?

I am saying that we, the west, should but out of middle eastern affairs. Leave it to their Arab neighbours to determine if to or how to fix it. Western intervention will just inflame and already huge anti western sentiment throught the middle east.

If you find the actions of a regime morally repugnant I think declining to trade with them is more than appropriate, even though we still choose to trade with the likes of China which is far from perfect. When it comes to military intervention I would agree that the only thing it seems to achieve is change who is being murdered by who, democracy never seems to figure, yet we naively persist in believing this illusion. Where I disagree is your belief we 'inflame anti-western sentiment'. If you look at world history over the last 1400 years you can see clearly that anti-everyone else sentiment has been the rule rather than the exception throughout the Islamic world. The colonial period brought this to an end for a while, solely because we had the means to impose our will. We still have those means but instead due partly to oil, partly to a post-colonial guilt trip we seem blind to what we are dealing with and now western foreign policy has morphed into doing the dirty work of the Muslim brotherhood.

With regards to Syria there is one significant piece of news that seems to have been overlooked;- Hamas have finally sided with the Syrian opposition against Assad. This may cut off Iranian sponsorship to Hamas, but it also lays bare the Sunni - Shia power struggle going on in the middle east. I see the prospects of a major war between a Sunni and Shiite power block as becoming more and more possible - though the house of Saud would rather their infidel stooges do their dirty work for them.

Yes. Good points Stan. But we will indeed have to agree to disagree on the bold printed point. Just last week a few Korans were burnt in the Ghan by mistake and that indeed inflamed anti US sentiment. And that was a slip up. So i guess much more deliberate actions such as military interventions and sactions do inflame matters also.

[Scott]

And plenty of people get upset when the west doesn't intervene.

It's a bit of a catch 22.

[Steely Dan]

Yes. Good points Stan. But we will indeed have to agree to disagree on the bold printed point. Just last week a few Korans were burnt in the Ghan by mistake and that indeed inflamed anti US sentiment. And that was a slip up. So i guess much more deliberate actions such as military interventions and sactions do inflame matters also.

I won't comment more about the Quran incident as it belongs on another (near empty) thread, but I did post a link there that you may find of interest. But it is indeed catch 22, whatever the west does it gets blamed for, yet the colonial era is long gone, how much longer will it be used as an excuse?

[maidu]

Don't you get it? Don't you learn ?

I take it you are referring to the E.U and not Assad. So would you have the E.U do nothing at all whilst Assad butchers his people, or are you perhaps assuming that these sanctions are an inevitable precursor to regime change?

I am saying that we, the west, should but out of middle eastern affairs. Leave it to their Arab neighbours to determine if to or how to fix it. Western intervention will just inflame and already huge anti western sentiment throught the middle east.

Westerners could do as the Chinese do, and simply stay out of all the troubles in the Middle East. I'm not saying the US and Europe always do the right thing, but most of the time they do, and it's expensive in money/resources and young mens' lives/maimed. If 'the West' hadn't intervened, here are some scenarios which would be extant in the Middle East:

>>>> Afghanistan might be a Russian vassal state, with never-ending fighting. (similar to what's happening now).

>>>> Kuwait would be a province of Iraq

>>>> Gadhafi would still be tormenting Libyans

>>>> Saddam Hussein would still be tormenting Iraquis

....the list goes on.

In some ways, I can agree to let the Middle Easterners stew in their own crap. However, troubles in the Middle East don't stay in the Middle East. They have a nasty habit of adversely impacting elsewhere, like a botulism.

[flying]

it's expensive in money/resources and young mens' lives/maimed. If 'the West' hadn't intervened, here are some scenarios which would be extant in the Middle East:

>>>> Afghanistan might be a Russian vassal state, with never-ending fighting. (similar to what's happening now).

>>>> Kuwait would be a province of Iraq

>>>> Gadhafi would still be tormenting Libyans

>>>> Saddam Hussein would still be tormenting Iraquis

....the list goes on.

In some ways, I can agree to let the Middle Easterners stew in their own crap. However, troubles in the Middle East don't stay in the Middle East. They have a nasty habit of adversely impacting elsewhere, like a botulism.

Very good list & quite likely would have been the extent of the truth...Except more than likely Russia would not control Afghanistan only have been bankrupted sooner...Same as we (USA) are being helped towards now....

As for ME impacting elsewhere...I know we are told that but really I do not feel it to be true with the exception of oil prices...perhaps

Ultimately these are sovereign states & need to sort themselves out period. Their own inhabitants will decide when & how & them alone.

For any 3rd party to come in & enforce ultimately *their* will albeit under supposedly good intentions just will not work.

As a small analogy.....Why do you think cops hate domestic disputes?

Instead lets do as instructed on Foreign Policy by folks like J.Q. Adams speaking of America

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

Full Address Here

http://www.fff.org/c...AdamsPolicy.asp

Edited February 29, 2012 by flying

[maidu]

Latest news on BBC, Thursday morn: Kofi Annan is leading efforts to try and begin to fix the mess in Syria.

[flying]

Latest news on BBC, Thursday morn: Kofi Annan is leading efforts to try and begin to fix the mess in Syria.

Kofi & Samuel could be brothers

[exeter]

Wellington boots, Kit Kat bars, live Premier League football now also to join the sanction list, tune in again for the latest list.

[Steely Dan]

I agree with sanctions, but intervention is a whole different ballgame. Here is a good article on the futility of such intervention.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/02/saving-muslims-from-themselves.html

After September 11 the reasonable thing to do would have been to take steps to save ourselves from Islamic terror, instead we went on a crusade to save Muslims from themselves. The latest stop on that crusade is Syria, where the foreign policy experts responsible for decades of horrifying misjudgements tell us that we are duty bound to save the Syrian people from their dictator.

[exeter]

I agree with sanctions, but intervention is a whole different ballgame. Here is a good article on the futility of such intervention.

http://sultanknish.b...themselves.html

After September 11 the reasonable thing to do would have been to take steps to save ourselves from Islamic terror, instead we went on a crusade to save Muslims from themselves. The latest stop on that crusade is Syria, where the foreign policy experts responsible for decades of horrifying misjudgements tell us that we are duty bound to save the Syrian people from their dictator.

Intervention is most unlikely as the Russians will park a few ship off the coast to deter this, they have their interests to protect and people come second as usual. The UN have in other words just let the Assad govt do exactly what they want, you can argue its their country and they can do what they want but they obviously dont put much value on the lives of their own countryfolk.

I will cross it of my list of holiday destinations along with Iran and N Korea.

Edited March 1, 2012 by exeter

[kerryk]

it's expensive in money/resources and young mens' lives/maimed. If 'the West' hadn't intervened, here are some scenarios which would be extant in the Middle East:

>>>> Afghanistan might be a Russian vassal state, with never-ending fighting. (similar to what's happening now).

>>>> Kuwait would be a province of Iraq

>>>> Gadhafi would still be tormenting Libyans

>>>> Saddam Hussein would still be tormenting Iraquis

....the list goes on.

In some ways, I can agree to let the Middle Easterners stew in their own crap. However, troubles in the Middle East don't stay in the Middle East. They have a nasty habit of adversely impacting elsewhere, like a botulism.

Very good list & quite likely would have been the extent of the truth...Except more than likely Russia would not control Afghanistan only have been bankrupted sooner...Same as we (USA) are being helped towards now....

As for ME impacting elsewhere...I know we are told that but really I do not feel it to be true with the exception of oil prices...perhaps

Ultimately these are sovereign states & need to sort themselves out period. Their own inhabitants will decide when & how & them alone.

For any 3rd party to come in & enforce ultimately *their* will albeit under supposedly good intentions just will not work.

As a small analogy.....Why do you think cops hate domestic disputes?

Instead lets do as instructed on Foreign Policy by folks like J.Q. Adams speaking of America

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

Full Address Here

http://www.fff.org/c...AdamsPolicy.asp

I didn't know that John Quincy Adams was on topic but since the post has stood for 19 hours I assume it is OK. Adams would have probably invaded Syria. He was a bit of a war monger and was Secretary of State for Jackson and agreed with invading foreign territory (Florida) and executing British businessmen and everyone who knows anything about American history knows how he felt about Islam (Google Adams Islam) and the Barbary coast wars (America won). I think he was also Secretary of State for Monroe and of course everyone knows about the Monroe Doctrine and Cuba and Missiles and all that stuff. [/indent]

Edited March 1, 2012 by kerryk

[Scott]

It's not on-topic.

I think we can dispense with a long and confusing history lesson.